Josh Gibson Tier One knob pulled

16christensen16 · Jun 10, 2016

RStadlerASU22 said:
What do u think it came from? The same Sterling one or something else ?

Ryan

This is just my opinion, but it has to be from the same game model bat they used in 2006 topps sterling. Very little of that bat was actually cut up. I can't imagine topps actually buying another Gibson bat because there just aren't any around

RStadlerASU22 · Jun 10, 2016

16christensen16 said:
This is just my opinion, but it has to be from the same game model bat they used in 2006 topps sterling. Very little of that bat was actually cut up. I can't imagine topps actually buying another Gibson bat because there just aren't any around

I would agree other than a lil' surprised they sat on it for 10 years.

Ryan

death2redemptions · Jun 10, 2016

RStadlerASU22 said:
I would agree other than a lil' surprised they sat on it for 10 years.

Ryan

Yeah, I find that sort of odd.

Mighty Bombjack · Jun 10, 2016

smapdi said:
IIRC, they said this was a mistake, but how can you make a mistake like that?

I don't want to defend Topps on this because they really do need to step up with this stuff and ensure more clarity, but I can tell you that mistakes like this happen because of a serious lack of communication across the card making process. The editor who is creating and finalizing the photos and wording on these cards never sees the items that get placed within and know nothing of them, really. They get a spreadsheet that has a list of inventory. Most every knob in this set is (ostensibly) game used, so the generic text for this subset was created and thrown together. Next to Josh Gibson on the spread sheet, it had "Barrel" and "bat" (if he also has regular bat pieces in the set, I'm not sure of that), and the editor created those cards just like any other player who had "Barrel" on the spreadsheet. So many steps in the process of making these cards, with so many hands unaware of what the other numerous hands are doing.

smapdi said:
And there was this barrel, presumably from the same bat as the knob above, although the color of the wood looks distinctly different.

This looks like a sell sheet mockup to me. Any knowledge of whether it is?

16christensen16 · Jun 10, 2016

RStadlerASU22 said:
I would agree other than a lil' surprised they sat on it for 10 years.

Ryan

Why did panini sit on the home donruss 1925 ruth jersey for 10 years? I can't explain it but it seems like both companies did the same thing

RStadlerASU22 · Jun 10, 2016

16christensen16 said:
Why did panini sit on the home donruss 1925 ruth jersey for 10 years? I can't explain it but it seems like both companies did the same thing

Because they didn't sign a deal to use his name or likeness again until 2015.

Gibson has been in Topps products over the years. It's just prob something we'd never understand in their ways of thinking. It wouldn't surprise me if they had forgotten they even had it.

Ryan

16christensen16 · Jun 10, 2016

RStadlerASU22 said:
Because they didn't sign a deal to use his name or likeness again until 2015.

Gibson has been in Topps products over the years. It's just prob something wed never understand in their ways of thinking. It wouldn't surprise me if they had forgotten they even had it.

Ryan

Good point on the ruth. Who knows with topps haha. It's actually not a bad idea to sit on rare memorabilia for awhile instead of just flooding the market over 18 months

Austin · Jun 10, 2016

If there are only one or two Gibson game used bats in existence, then it's a shame to cut them up for a baseball card instead of displaying them in the Hall of Fame or ***** League museum.

I hate when card companies destroy rare uniforms and bats.

RStadlerASU22 · Jun 10, 2016

16christensen16 said:
Good point on the ruth. Who knows with topps haha. It's actually not a bad idea to sit on rare memorabilia for awhile instead of just flooding the market over 18 months

I'd agree to that as well until MLB punks ya' like they did with exclusives. Anyway, it's not a bad thing but like Adam mentioned, they should promote it more.

Ryan

rsmath · Jun 11, 2016

Austin said:
If there are only one or two Gibson game used bats in existence, then it's a shame to cut them up for a baseball card instead of displaying them in the Hall of Fame or ***** League museum.

I hate when card companies destroy rare uniforms and bats.

I can't feel too bad about that. These museums are soliciting for artifact donations all the time so there is one opportunity. If the person with the item doesn't feel like donating it, these museums charge fees so if they are well run organizations, they have the ability to save cash to bid on these items at auction (another opportunity). They can also do what a local museum did and sell off some pieces in order to raise cash to acquire more desirable pieces, so that is the third opportunity.

predatorkj · Jun 11, 2016

rsmath said:
I can't feel too bad about that. These museums are soliciting for artifact donations all the time so there is one opportunity. If the person with the item doesn't feel like donating it, these museums charge fees so if they are well run organizations, they have the ability to save cash to bid on these items at auction (another opportunity). They can also do what a local museum did and sell off some pieces in order to raise cash to acquire more desirable pieces, so that is the third opportunity.

Yeah but as a baseball lover, you really do have to question the idiocy of cutting up a really unique and rare item. They gripe about other players' stuff getting cut up. I'd argue there is more to go around. With the stuff from the ***** leagues, I'm not sure how much of it has survived. I also think there was less of it to begin with. It needs to be preserved as an integral part of baseball history.

As for it being called "authentic" or Game used, Topps has steadily been shaky on this. They leave their wording open. Interpretation would suggest: It's because they think it was GU but can't prove it and don't want to stick their neck out.

homerun28aa · Jun 11, 2016

16christensen16 said:
This is just my opinion, but it has to be from the same game model bat they used in 2006 topps sterling. Very little of that bat was actually cut up. I can't imagine topps actually buying another Gibson bat because there just aren't any around

You are 100% correct here, as I'd expect you to be lol. There were 10 Gibson Sterlings #/10 (100 total), 50 Allen & Ginters, between the different variations of the Triple Threads stuff I'd expect about 60. Plus the nameplate. That's a very small number, only 210 total small wood chip pieces for a full bat is nothing they had plenty left.

homerun28aa · Jun 11, 2016

Do you actually know for a fact that that's the process involved? If so that's very interesting. They could do a much better job of improving the integrity of their game used products period.

Mighty Bombjack said:
I don't want to defend Topps on this because they really do need to step up with this stuff and ensure more clarity, but I can tell you that mistakes like this happen because of a serious lack of communication across the card making process. The editor who is creating and finalizing the photos and wording on these cards never sees the items that get placed within and know nothing of them, really. They get a spreadsheet that has a list of inventory. Most every knob in this set is (ostensibly) game used, so the generic text for this subset was created and thrown together. Next to Josh Gibson on the spread sheet, it had "Barrel" and "bat" (if he also has regular bat pieces in the set, I'm not sure of that), and the editor created those cards just like any other player who had "Barrel" on the spreadsheet. So many steps in the process of making these cards, with so many hands unaware of what the other numerous hands are doing.

This looks like a sell sheet mockup to me. Any knowledge of whether it is?

homerun28aa · Jun 11, 2016

Austin said:
If there are only one or two Gibson game used bats in existence, then it's a shame to cut them up for a baseball card instead of displaying them in the Hall of Fame or ***** League museum.

I hate when card companies destroy rare uniforms and bats.

Have to respectfully disagree. I see people's points on the value of the preservation of an unmodified original game used bat but think about the excitement that thousands of baseball enthusiasts feel about owning a small piece of it. Literally thousands. I think it's a cool concept personally but again I do understand the opposing view.

homerun28aa · Jun 11, 2016

RStadlerASU22 said:
Because they didn't sign a deal to use his name or likeness again until 2015.

Gibson has been in Topps products over the years. It's just prob something we'd never understand in their ways of thinking. It wouldn't surprise me if they had forgotten they even had it.

Ryan

That's a good point but I do believes there are additional reasons and incentives a card company may sit on relics for awhile. As christensaid said if you put out fewer game used over the years the card will continue to hold value for a longer period of time which as a collector obviously makes me happy. Also think about it from the card companies angle, a more valuable product on the secondary market inherently makes their products more valuable and they can charge us more. I'm not sure what you collect, but for me it's mostly patches and HOF game used/autos with very occasional knobs/barrels. If for example Topps was coming out with a product that had a Leon Day glove card, I'd be somewhat likely to buy a product I wouldn't have otherwise since it'd be cool to own two. I think since a lot of people collect HOF game used it gives them more incentives.

Also, and this is just my opinion not supported by any factual info, but I think that having a big chunk of a rare game used item gives them a higher revenue potential and a lot of leverage with their competition. Think about Panini releasing National Treasures with a Joe Jackson bat card, Topps could undercut them and come out with a product with a Josh Gibson bat card, as an example, to decrease the desire for National Treasures. Also Topps could sell a game used item to Panini for example, for more money than they would get in sales from cutting it up and putting it into boxes. Again I really don't know that it plays a factor but I personally think it may.

r2d2 · Jun 11, 2016

predatorkj said:
Yeah but as a baseball lover, you really do have to question the idiocy of cutting up a really unique and rare item. They gripe about other players' stuff getting cut up. I'd argue there is more to go around. With the stuff from the ***** leagues, I'm not sure how much of it has survived. I also think there was less of it to begin with. It needs to be preserved as an integral part of baseball history.

As for it being called "authentic" or Game used, Topps has steadily been shaky on this. They leave their wording open. Interpretation would suggest: It's because they think it was GU but can't prove it and don't want to stick their neck out.

The issue is as this is private property anything can be done with it.

Mighty Bombjack · Jun 11, 2016

homerun28aa said:
Do you actually know for a fact that that's the process involved? If so that's very interesting. They could do a much better job of improving the integrity of their game used products period.

It was like this when I was baseball editor from 2001-2002, and it was like this when the Gibson bat barrel was made (I was still in touch with a few editors there at that time). I can't speak to the situation there currently, but I would wager it is just as disjointed.

16christensen16 · Jun 11, 2016

homerun28aa said:
You are 100% correct here, as I'd expect you to be lol. There were 10 Gibson Sterlings #/10 (100 total), 50 Allen & Ginters, between the different variations of the Triple Threads stuff I'd expect about 60. Plus the nameplate. That's a very small number, only 210 total small wood chip pieces for a full bat is nothing they had plenty left.

i believe you are close on 200 pieces. A typical bat will yield around 1250-1500 bat pieces. A vintage flannel jersey will yield around 2000 jersey swatches with 100-150 patches

16christensen16 · Jun 11, 2016

I personally like the idea of cutting up relics and putting them in cards. With that being said I am also a owner of full vintage gamers and bats. I enjoy both. Yes some are more rare then others and you can argue you shouldn't cut them up. However the fact of the matter is if someone doesn't want them cut up then just outbid the baseball card companies. People who own vintage memorabilia should actually be thanking the card companies because it has made there own bats and jerseys worth more.

16christensen16 · Jun 11, 2016

homerun28aa said:
That's a good point but I do believes there are additional reasons and incentives a card company may sit on relics for awhile. As christensaid said if you put out fewer game used over the years the card will continue to hold value for a longer period of time which as a collector obviously makes me happy. Also think about it from the card companies angle, a more valuable product on the secondary market inherently makes their products more valuable and they can charge us more. I'm not sure what you collect, but for me it's mostly patches and HOF game used/autos with very occasional knobs/barrels. If for example Topps was coming out with a product that had a Leon Day glove card, I'd be somewhat likely to buy a product I wouldn't have otherwise since it'd be cool to own two. I think since a lot of people collect HOF game used it gives them more incentives.

Also, and this is just my opinion not supported by any factual info, but I think that having a big chunk of a rare game used item gives them a higher revenue potential and a lot of leverage with their competition. Think about Panini releasing National Treasures with a Joe Jackson bat card, Topps could undercut them and come out with a product with a Josh Gibson bat card, as an example, to decrease the desire for National Treasures. Also Topps could sell a game used item to Panini for example, for more money than they would get in sales from cutting it up and putting it into boxes. Again I really don't know that it plays a factor but I personally think it may.

There is no doubt that topps and panini have internal meetings about how to one-up the competition. That's the nature of business...you want to do better then your competition. I'm waiting until either topps or panini makes a Walter Johnson bat barrel for me

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Josh Gibson Tier One knob pulled

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

New member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

Similar threads

Log in